Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104839 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The only God we speak of is "God the creator" He is the only God I believe in. So to me he is saying God is proven false.
You understand the difference there? We don't talk about Zues or Poseidon or etc etc do we?
Point us to a Greek creationist ruining science education and we shall eviscerate him also.

Problem is Repro, is that you're a Westerner posting on a forum populated full of Westerners, so any theists not of the Judeo-Christian variety are quite rare. However we have had the occasional Islamic fundie, I THINK one Hindu Vedec fundie one time, a couple of cranks and nihilists. They all get the same treatment. Even by the non-fundie theists who support science around here, of which there are a few. But since 99% of the anti-science crowd are Christian creationists there's not much else really to shoot at.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104840 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
On that same note unless you can show that every potential pathway for God to exist has been explored then you cannot say God is impossible, proven false or canít exist.
There are no pathways therefore whether it exists or not is irrelevant.

If it does, it used evolution. Or God is a liar.

I'm open to either possibility.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104841 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
The "living god" thing was the favorite game of Marksman11.
Yup. Living eternal spirit, but for us to be one of those we have to be DEAD.

Another exception to the rule.

:-/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104842 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
God is God whether another culture calls him Allah or what ever.
Allah(the Arabic word for God) means God the creator and sustainer of the universe.
And Cosmic Sheep? Don't forget that.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104843 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I read them all. Nothing there about inanimate matter coming to life.
Now what they do say is science "created" this or that, science "creates" this or that but nothing of life forming from nonlife on it's own. Again all needing a "creator". End of story!
Then you did not understand them.

Please note they were talking about material self forming in the latter two articles.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104844 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
What would you say is the definition of abiogenesis?
The beginning of life from non life. Genesis - start. Bio - life. A - negative (old Latin). Abiogenesis. Life from non-life. Which is what the geological record indicates.

Yes, maybe God started it off. No biggie.

Unless you're Bohart in which case you can command Almighty God, Creator and sustainer of the universe, not to use abiogenesis.

Hot darn, that's impressive!

“The Grim Reaper Is Fictional ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

But We Will All Meet Him

#104845 Nov 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
1 - Assumption is unnecessary. I give you an entire planet's worth of evidence.
2 - There is no evidence of life before that time.
3 - God is irrelevant to science, period. It might not be false. It might even be true. But as of this current moment in time, "God's" only use is as a political tool.
4 - Planet Earth. The specifics of how are unknown at this time.
5 - Then in your position EVERY claim is valid even when none have evidence. Ultimately though that's your problem, not ours.
In 1 you say "I give you an entire planet's worth of evidence." Evidence for what? Abiogenesis? Brilliant!! I give you the same evidence for God.

In 2 you say "There is no evidence of life before that time." So how did life come to be? It had to come from nonlife would you not agree?

In 3 you say "God is a political tool" is the best you have.

In 4 you say "The specifics of how are unknown at this time." If it is not known then you can't claim what it is.

In 5 you say "by my position every claim is valid even when none have evidence." My position is absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It applies to work in science, so why can it not apply to God as well?

So what is it dud? Either you have evidence or you don't. Not knowing is not evidence. Not knowing is guesses and assumptions.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#104846 Nov 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And hypothesis are not assumed. That definition is incorrect.
The correct definition doesn't fit his "argument"
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104847 Nov 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Followers of those various religions would disagree with you.
Especially as they believe in a pantheon.

Which let's face it, a committee is far more likely, as they tend to be less organised.

Why the feck do I have nipples again?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104848 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm? nothing here about inanimate matter coming to life. Did you provide the wrong link?
Yup, nothing there about inanimate matter coming to life. Since that's not abio's claim. Nor ours.

Wouldn't be so bad if I hadn't just reminded you for the 1000th time just a few hours ago.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104849 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You assume I am confused just like you assume it is a big jump from a suggestion to assume.
How would you define make a suggestion? Maybe a guess. Maybe we think. Maybe this or that. All assumptions.
Wrong, we know that you are confused by your posts. Either that or you are being deliberately dishonest.

A suggestion is not an assumption.

Rather than following you down your ever spinning rabbit hole I will refer to this definition of hypothesis from Wikipedia:

"A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon."

That is all it is. How it was arrived at is another matter. Since most scientists are very educated at the worst you could call a hypothesis an educated guess. We find out whether or not hypotheses are true by testing them. With enough testing and reworking a hypothesis can become a theory.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104850 Nov 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But I am NOT re-defining the theory. The laws of physics and chemistry are not random.
Can't I have technetium by combining hydrogen and oxygen? PLEASE? Just once?

:-(

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104851 Nov 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Especially as they believe in a pantheon.
Which let's face it, a committee is far more likely, as they tend to be less organised.
Why the feck do I have nipples again?
You don't know!?

I will give you some clues, girlfriend, ice, clothes pins, electric cattl... oops, I am getting into Jimbo territory there.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104852 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
What natural laws of physics and chemistry cause chemicals, enzymes ,proteins etc. to self assemble in the proper order, and proper amounts before the alleged burst to life started?
What is "proper"?

You have different amounts of proteins, enzymes and chemicals in your body than Replay does.

Is intelligence the opposite of random?

Did you say your position, life only from life is bore out from scientific observation?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104853 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for hitting the essence of the abiogenesis debate on the head. It is based on beliefs , either a creator did it, or it created itself.
Beliefs are irrelevant to reality. Science is only interested in what you can demonstrate.

Did you say that your position, life from non-life is supported by scientific observation?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104854 Nov 5, 2013
Sorry, meant to say: your position, life from life is supported by scientific observation?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104855 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I read them all. Nothing there about inanimate matter coming to life.
Now what they do say is science "created" this or that, science "creates" this or that but nothing of life forming from nonlife on it's own. Again all needing a "creator". End of story!
Ah, but a 'creator' does not necessarily have to be intelligent.

Go ask the Cosmic Sheep. The Great Fart was purely an accident after a dodgy curry.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104856 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, you are wrong. A hypothesis is NOT an assumption. It is a proposed explanation (subject to testing).
Yeah, Harvard haven't bothered trying to test invisible Jewmagic yet.

Not sure why.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104857 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.
A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested.
Proposed - make suggestion: to put forward something such as an idea or suggestion
Make suggestions -assume.
Where is it that you get confused?
Nothing wrong with an assumption in science, after all it's what are used to test ideas. Rather like mathematical models rely on axioms (assumptions) in order to work. Without them nothing will work.

And that's the difference between a scientific assumption and a religious assumption - the latter AVOIDS testing (or can't be tested at all).
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104858 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Fool! if God does it , its not abiogenesis!
Yeah, that's right Bo! You tell Him! HEEL, GOD, GODDAMM YOU!!!

Which of course is beside the point that if such a being exists, there is nothing to prevent it from using chemical processes to develop life, rather than magical poofing - which by the way violates the "law" of biogenesis.
bohart wrote:
Damn you are stupid, you don't even know what the theory you believe in means.
Theory? What theory do you refer to? I don't believe in theories as scientific theories tend to have evidence. So I just accept them.
bohart wrote:
remember the Jew magic?
I do. I also remember it is what you constantly use to pretend that this is a battle of one religious belief against another, rather than deal with the fact that our position is not contrary to observable evidence while yours is.

Have you managed to solve the riddle of your flawed position yet?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 3 min mixed up marital ... 25,464
last word/first word. (Apr '12) 3 min andet1987 5,149
What's your tip for the day? 5 min wichita-rick 1,795
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 5 min Judy 123 55,244
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 6 min beatlesinafog 138,317
Good Night Thread... (Nov '12) 6 min honeymylove 970
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 7 min andet1987 17,921
Merry Christmas Topix, Thanks For,...? 20 min -Lea- 70
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr _hellbilly_ 152,344
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr dragoon70056 37,715
Family Feud Contestant Knows Women Have To Be '... 4 hr Phyllis Schlafly ... 8
More from around the web